I'm gonna disagree on Atlanta with you guys. It was awesome of them to pick up two firsts for Schroeder, but realistically, all of their picks will convey when those teams are middle-of-the-pack teams.

In other words, they will be getting 1st round picks that are 15-20. That's helpful, but not really game-changing.

They don't really have any starting caliber players on their team, but their fan attendance is at an all-time low already.

Even if they get a good draft pick this year and next, they would be putting a lot of pressure on their young players to produce, which might lead to poor development.

I mean, the 5 first round picks seems pretty solid, but did they really improve their situation?

I'm finishing up my explanation for the comments thread that might address some of yours here but this brings up the question of how we're grading success. I looked at it as a three part thing.

What should the team's goal have been?

How much closer are they to that goal? ** most important to me.

How realistic were the moves?

For Atlanta the goal can only be to get worse this year and increase future value. It certainly was not to get better players in this environment. Fan attendance is a long term issue that won't be solved in one season, and our team is likely the worst this year and next no matter how those assets were used. Our best bet is to draft and be in position to capitalize on trades.

Also that determination on the picks is subjective. Most of those picks are too far into the future to have any certainty about what they'll look like when they convey. We had no idea the Brooklyn picks would be good at the time. We still don't know what the Celtics owed Memphis pick really looks like.

I'm not confident I got enough done in Atlanta and fell short of my own goals but I think if you can clearly define what Atlanta's goal should be in the short and long term that this was a positive week.

I haven't voted yet because I want to scrub through all the trades, so if we're all working on a different definition of success then I can adjust.

I get it. You picked a tough team. You did a decent job with him. It's not what I think would be helpful long-term, but you are the GM, not me. I didn't vote for you -- although I did really like the Schroeder trade.

I think it's amazing that you have nearly as many votes as the Bucks, who went from middle-of-the-pack Eastern Conference team to a miserable matchup for any team, including the Warriors. They are true contenders, and making a trade that accomplishes that is rare and impressive.

Not getting much love for the Hornets, who dropped a ton of salary, picked up the future of the franchise, and got some better fitting pieces.

I had forgotten I couldn't trade a player after I acquired them, otherwise I would have worked out a trade for Teague or Rubio and made it a 3 team, but I actually don't mind have the two vets to man the fort, while Wiggins and Monk (and Kaminsky to a lesser extent) develop. The connectivity issues made it difficult to find a home for Dwight at the end of the deadline, but I'm ok having him in the middle for a couple of seasons before he comes off the book and with Faried there will always be an interior presence on the floor allowing Kaminsky to play outside or the team to go small with Rubio, Teague, Monk, and Wiggins all on the floor at the same time.

I just felt these types of trades were far more realistic for a team starving to win. I had some tanking trades available for Kemba, in which the team would have totally rebooted, but that just didn't seem like the type of thing Jordan would have done, so I went with the trade for Wiggins to get the new face of the franchise and I do think he and Monk is a great duo going forward.

Not getting much love for the Hornets, who dropped a ton of salary, picked up the future of the franchise, and got some better fitting pieces.

I had forgotten I couldn't trade a player after I acquired them, otherwise I would have worked out a trade for Teague or Rubio and made it a 3 team, but I actually don't mind have the two vets to man the fort, while Wiggins and Monk (and Kaminsky to a lesser extent) develop. The connectivity issues made it difficult to find a home for Dwight at the end of the deadline, but I'm ok having him in the middle for a couple of seasons before he comes off the book and with Faried there will always be an interior presence on the floor allowing Kaminsky to play outside or the team to go small with Rubio, Teague, Monk, and Wiggins all on the floor at the same time.

I just felt these types of trades were far more realistic for a team starving to win. I had some tanking trades available for Kemba, in which the team would have totally rebooted, but that just didn't seem like the type of thing Jordan would have done, so I went with the trade for Wiggins to get the new face of the franchise and I do think he and Monk is a great duo going forward.

You had a decent deadline.

You did dump a lot of salary, but you traded 1 all-star (Walker), 3 high level rotation players (Batum, Zeller, and Williams), and a prospect (MKG) for 3 high level rotation players (Teague, Rubio, Wiggins) and a role player (Faried).

Your deadline would be a win if Wiggins turns into an all-star wing that can pull his team to wins. I'm not so sure he can become that.

It would also be a success if, by freeing up time for Kaminsky and Monk, those guys become high-level players. I don't really believe in Kaminsky, but Monk might be good.

In the end, this team looks like the quintessential "treadmill" team for the next few years, unless you strike it lucky with one of your future draft picks.

Not getting much love for the Hornets, who dropped a ton of salary, picked up the future of the franchise, and got some better fitting pieces.

I had forgotten I couldn't trade a player after I acquired them, otherwise I would have worked out a trade for Teague or Rubio and made it a 3 team, but I actually don't mind have the two vets to man the fort, while Wiggins and Monk (and Kaminsky to a lesser extent) develop. The connectivity issues made it difficult to find a home for Dwight at the end of the deadline, but I'm ok having him in the middle for a couple of seasons before he comes off the book and with Faried there will always be an interior presence on the floor allowing Kaminsky to play outside or the team to go small with Rubio, Teague, Monk, and Wiggins all on the floor at the same time.

I just felt these types of trades were far more realistic for a team starving to win. I had some tanking trades available for Kemba, in which the team would have totally rebooted, but that just didn't seem like the type of thing Jordan would have done, so I went with the trade for Wiggins to get the new face of the franchise and I do think he and Monk is a great duo going forward.

You had a decent deadline.

You did dump a lot of salary, but you traded 1 all-star (Walker), 3 high level rotation players (Batum, Zeller, and Williams), and a prospect (MKG) for 3 high level rotation players (Teague, Rubio, Wiggins) and a role player (Faried).

Your deadline would be a win if Wiggins turns into an all-star wing that can pull his team to wins. I'm not so sure he can become that.

It would also be a success if, by freeing up time for Kaminsky and Monk, those guys become high-level players. I don't really believe in Kaminsky, but Monk might be good.

In the end, this team looks like the quintessential "treadmill" team for the next few years, unless you strike it lucky with one of your future draft picks.

fair enough, though they were a treadmill team anyway, but without the potential great young player and a much worse salary situation. The Hornets do still have their lottery pick this year for a chance at another great young player. I'm obviously much higher on Wiggins then most. I think he has a chance to be a great player and just don't see him being used correctly in Minnesota. Teague is a recent all star, making him far better than anyone traded (aside from Kemba obviously). And I think it is silly to put Faried on a different level than Williams and Zeller. Different type of role, but they are all the same level of player (and frankly he is basically the same type of player that MKG is one is a wing the other a big).

Not getting much love for the Hornets, who dropped a ton of salary, picked up the future of the franchise, and got some better fitting pieces.

I had forgotten I couldn't trade a player after I acquired them, otherwise I would have worked out a trade for Teague or Rubio and made it a 3 team, but I actually don't mind have the two vets to man the fort, while Wiggins and Monk (and Kaminsky to a lesser extent) develop. The connectivity issues made it difficult to find a home for Dwight at the end of the deadline, but I'm ok having him in the middle for a couple of seasons before he comes off the book and with Faried there will always be an interior presence on the floor allowing Kaminsky to play outside or the team to go small with Rubio, Teague, Monk, and Wiggins all on the floor at the same time.

I just felt these types of trades were far more realistic for a team starving to win. I had some tanking trades available for Kemba, in which the team would have totally rebooted, but that just didn't seem like the type of thing Jordan would have done, so I went with the trade for Wiggins to get the new face of the franchise and I do think he and Monk is a great duo going forward.

You had a decent deadline.

You did dump a lot of salary, but you traded 1 all-star (Walker), 3 high level rotation players (Batum, Zeller, and Williams), and a prospect (MKG) for 3 high level rotation players (Teague, Rubio, Wiggins) and a role player (Faried).

Your deadline would be a win if Wiggins turns into an all-star wing that can pull his team to wins. I'm not so sure he can become that.

It would also be a success if, by freeing up time for Kaminsky and Monk, those guys become high-level players. I don't really believe in Kaminsky, but Monk might be good.

In the end, this team looks like the quintessential "treadmill" team for the next few years, unless you strike it lucky with one of your future draft picks.

fair enough, though they were a treadmill team anyway, but without the potential great young player and a much worse salary situation. The Hornets do still have their lottery pick this year for a chance at another great young player. I'm obviously much higher on Wiggins then most. I think he has a chance to be a great player and just don't see him being used correctly in Minnesota. Teague is a recent all star, making him far better than anyone traded (aside from Kemba obviously). And I think it is silly to put Faried on a different level than Williams and Zeller. Different type of role, but they are all the same level of player (and frankly he is basically the same type of player that MKG is one is a wing the other a big).

Makes sense. You got higher upside and lower salary. Not bad.

We do disagree on Faried. Undersized 4s who can't shoot aren't very valuable. His minutes keep going down because he can't really defend any position and he is a negative on offense. I'd rather have Zeller or Williams.

However, you didn't trade Zeller or Williams for Faried. You traded MKG for him. That's a taste thing. I'd rather keep rolling with MKG as a younger player, but Faried has less years on his contract.